True it can be taken in this way but he does seem to be meaning it more literally.

What is your view on how D.O. can be ended? This is another point where the two view on it seem to clash. For example Bhikkhu Buddhadasa states that by meaning mindful of feelings and not letting it turn to craving that D.O. can be stopped but I have read another view by Ajham Brahm that this is wrong as one can only break it via uprooting ignorance.

For me I see Bhikkhu Buddhadasa as correct as it is ignorant to let feelings go onto craving as craving is dukkha.

"And do you think that unto such as you, A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew, God gave a secret and denied it me! Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

That is how i percieved it but a have seen what appears to be a critique by ajham brahm that mindfulness of feeling to prevent craving can stop D.O. is false.

"Some Western Buddhists have proposed that the 'forward' order of Paticca-samuppada can be halted by 'cutting' the process between vedana and tanha. Often I have heard some suggest that rebirth can be avoided through using sati (mindfulness) on vedana to stop it generating tanha and the following factors of Paticca-samuppada. This is, in my understanding, misconceived on two grounds.First, the 'forward' order of Paticca-samuppada was never intended to demonstrate how the process should be 'cut'. The 'forward' order is only meant to show how the process continues. The teaching on how the process is 'cut', or rather ceases, is the purpose reserved for the 'reverse' order of Paticca-samuppada or `Dependent Cessation'.Secondly, even though vedana does not inevitably produce tanha, because it is not a sufficient condition, it is well stated by The Buddha that only when avijja ceases once and for all does vedana never generate tanha ! This means that one doesn't `cut' the process using sati on vedana. Sati is not enough. The process stops from the cessation of avijja, as Dependent Cessation makes abundantly clear. The cessation of avijja is much more than the practice of sati."

clw_uk wrote:That is how i percieved it but a have seen what appears to be a critique by ajham brahm that mindfulness of feeling to prevent craving can stop D.O. is false.

Hi ClwI hate to say it but look at his newsletter about the Satipatthana Sutta!then look at what he says the suttas say and look at the suttas!

I like Ajahn Brahm but he made me look at my understanding of the satipatthana Sutta in a poor light which under closer evaluation I found not warented!

just to emphisise I like and enjoy his teachings and have them bookmarked

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

I too enjoy his teachings, i think he has a great way of putting teachings accross, just in relation to his writting on D.O. im not 100% sure.

In relation to an earlier comment, about kamma if it can cover three lives. Doesnt it say that when one achieves arahantship that all previous kamma becomes null and void (this is off the top of my head)

"And do you think that unto such as you, A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew, God gave a secret and denied it me! Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

This is what Bhikkhu Bodhi says about the three-liftimes model in 'A comprehensive manual of the Abhidhamma'.The first section is the quote from Acarya Anuruddha's Paccayasangaha in the Abhidhammatthasangha, followed by Venerable Bodhi's comments:

iv. Categories of AnalysisIt should be understood that there are three periods, twelve factors, twenty modes, three connections, four groups, three rounds, and two roots.

v. The Three periodsHow? Ignorance and kammic formations belong to the past; birth and decay-and-death belong to the future; the intermediate eight factors belong to the present. Thus there are three periods.

Guide to v. 5

When the twelve factors are dividied into three periods of time, this should be seen as a mere expository device for exhibiting the causal structure of the round of existence. It should be not taken to imply that the factors assigned to a particular temporal period operate only in that period and not on other occassions. In fact, the twelve factors are always present together in any single life, mutually implicative and interpenetrating.

clw_uk wrote:True it can be taken in this way but he does seem to be meaning it more literally.

What is your view on how D.O. can be ended? This is another point where the two view on it seem to clash. For example Bhikkhu Buddhadasa states that by meaning mindful of feelings and not letting it turn to craving that D.O. can be stopped but I have read another view by Ajham Brahm that this is wrong as one can only break it via uprooting ignorance.

For me I see Bhikkhu Buddhadasa as correct as it is ignorant to let feelings go onto craving as craving is dukkha.

The Buddha spoke about how to end dependent origination in the Mahàtanhàsankhaya Sutta and elsewhere.

“On seeing a form with the eye, he is not passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is not angry at it if it is displeasing. He lives with attention to body established, with an immeasurable mind and he understands realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. From the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; from the cessation of clinging, the cessation of becoming; from the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth; from the cessation of birth, ageing-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.

“On hearing a sound with the ear ... On smelling an odour with the nose ... On tasting a flavour with the tongue ... On touching a tangible with the body ...

On knowing a phenomenon with the mind, he is not passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is not angry at it if it is displeasing. He lives with attention to body established, with an immeasurable mind and he understands realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. From the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; from the cessation of clinging, the cessation of becoming; from the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth; from the cessation of birth, ageing-&-death sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.

clw_uk wrote:For example Bhikkhu Buddhadasa states that by meaning mindful of feelings and not letting it turn to craving that D.O. can be stopped but I have read another view by Ajham Brahm that this is wrong as one can only break it via uprooting ignorance.

CLW

All of the links of dependent origination are imbued with ignorance and ignorance functions on many levels.

For example, there is ignorance regarding the Four Noble Truths. When we understand the Noble Truths, we are mindful at feelings to stop craving & attachment as Buddhadasa said.

However, understanding life comprises of much more than non-craving and non-attachment. Thus, as wisdom grows, we end dependent origination at ignorance.

For example, we can watch TV, see war in Gaza and stop craving & attachment by being mindful at contact, by practising "just seeing, just hearing, just smelling, etc,..". This method, whilst rooted in the Noble Truths, has the flavour of concentration.

Whereas, if we watch TV and through wisdom understand deeply the causes & conditions that lead to the Gaza War, we can end craving, attachment & suffering through the power of wisdom. That is, we end dependent origination at ignorance.

The Lord Buddha taught both methods in the suttas. For example, in the Chachakka Sutta the Buddha focuses on contact (but of course includes wisdom).

However, as you correctly said, both methods require wisdom. Both methods are essentially the same because contact in dependent origination is always ignorant contact.

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication of self is born of that.

stuka wrote:One could fill the "examples" section of the Fallacyfiles website out of this work.

Do you have an example or two?

I, too would be interested in seeing some examples. Ajahn Brahm (in common with many others) sometimes skips over explaining different possible interpretations and has a different take on the necessity of Jhana than some other teachers, but his "serious" Dhamma writings and discussions appear to be largely mainstream Theravada. More so, in fact, than a number of other "Forest Monks".

You argument appears to be with standard Theravada interpretations, not just with Ajahn Brahm.

One could fill the "examples" section of the Fallacyfiles website out of this work.

Do you have an example or two?

Best wishes,Dhammanando Bhikkhu

No advocate of the "one-life" interpretation of Paticca-samuppada has ever been able to explain how Vinnanam can be something existing in this life and yet ceases in this life for an Arahat!

The Buddha wrote:"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness.

...

Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

Also, text without context is pretext. The essay is filled with vague "cites" to various suttas and works, but he avoids quoting exactly what he is referring to and analyzing it and relating it to his arguments.

A typical passage in this Sutta is analysed in Rune E A Johansson’s ‘Pali Buddhist Texts - explained to the beginner’. I recommend that you find this book, look up the passage on pages 66 and 67 and see how the word Sankhara is used in the meaning of a willed activity of body, speech or mind which causes rebirth.

The meaning of Bhava can be found at Anguttara Nikaya, Book Of The Threes, Sutta 76. Look this up in Pali and you will relish its deeper meaning.

Lastly, it becomes obvious that the full Paticca-samuppada cannot be interpreted as existing in one life when one looks at the first 3 links in reverse order: When Avijja ceases so does Sankhara and, consequently, so does Vinnanam. In other words the ending of Avijja causes the ending of Vinnanam. Now what type of Vinnanam can possibly cease as a result of a person eradicating Avijja, the ignorance of the full meaning of the Four Noble Truths? We all know that an Arahat, one who has eradicated Avijja, remains fully conscious, retaining Vinnanam, after his attainment. He does not become unconscious at the moment of his attainment, ever more to be comatose until he dies! So Vinnanam cannot mean the ordinary, arising in every moment, type of consciousness

This is a Straw Man. Also, this same argument , based upon the same assumptions, negates the "three-lives" argument. We have already discussed Dependent Co-Arising as a concomitant process, and we have discussed its role as explaining how the influence of ignorance on mental processes causes suffering. (Ignorance --> The Person --> Suffering). Brahmavamso's argument doesn't touch that at all.

...and so on...You are a scholar, Bhante. You know what scholarly work is not. Brahmavamso is preaching to the choir, writing for the sort of audience who would not be likely to challenge his specious arguments.

Last edited by stuka on Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

christopher::: wrote:How important within Buddhism is the value and practice of tolerance?

My impression from the scriptures is the Buddha himself was not tolerant of wrong view, especially if someone was claiming that wrong view was taught by the Buddha himself.

From MN 57:Monk: "Venerable sir, there is this Punna, a son of the Koliyans and an ox-duty ascetic; that ox duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"Buddha: "Seniya, if his ox duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of oxen; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."

I think many people would be upset by an exchange like this. They would want a Buddhist to say "Hey, if you like your ox-duty practice then go with it. We each have our own path."

From MN22:Monk: "Lord, I understand the teaching of the Blessed One in this way that those things called 'obstructions' by the Blessed One, are not necessarily obstructive for him who pursues them."Buddha: "Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner?"

Again, I think many people would expect a Buddhist to say "Maybe you're right, maybe not. Go and pursue your own path and see what happens."

The fact is the Buddha tuaght what he tuaght and he didn't pussy-foot around. That said, he didn't go up to people uninvited and hit them over the head. "Hey you, what you're doing is wrong, what you believe is false." For example, he only told the ox-duty ascetic his practice would lead him to hell because the ascetic asked the Buddha three times. The first two times the Buddha said "Don't ask me that."

I think the second example hits more to your question of modern Buddhism. I think the Buddha didn't tolerate novel interpretations of his teachings and I think that tradition carried forward. When differing interpretations took hold, councils were held to determine which one was correct.

Too bad He wasn't around when the whole "3-lives" eisegesis sprang up.

stuka wrote:Too bad He wasn't around when the whole "3-lives" eisegesis sprang up.

Not that I agree with you 100% (in fact, I happen to believe that dependent co-arising works over many lifetimes as well as in the present moment), stuka, but H. W. Schumann offers an interesting theory about this in his book, The Historical Buddha, which I thought I would contribute to the discussion. Even though he accepts that the Buddha taught rebirth, distinguishing five levels of existence in which one can be reborn, and that kamma takes effect not in but as the new being as per SN 12.37, he goes on to state (141-42):

Practical requirements made it necessary to present this 'rebirth without a soul' in a readily grasped and memorized form. Accordingly, the principle of dependent origination (paticca-samuppada) discovered by the Buddha was converted into the formula of dependent origination. It is not probable that Gotama himself actually formulated this conditional nexus of twelve links: it is more probably the work of early monks. As material they used three separate short chains of conditionality which the Master had used in sermons, and joined them up, irrespective of the fact that the twelve-linked chain thus created comprises three separate existences in a series of rebirths, but uses different terms to describe each of these existences. Nevertheless, the early monks considered this formula as such an important recognition that in compiling the Pali Canon they attributed it to the Buddha.

To counter this particular kind of argument, though, it should be noted that according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, even in the shorter chains, the other links are implicit. For example, he mentions that there are alternative patterns to the traditional twelve links such as where the Buddha starts out at sensory contact, but all the factors are there, e.g., in the one with ten factors, you have consciousness and name-and-form acting as causes and conditions for each other, however, fabrications and ignorance are included under name.

stuka wrote: Lastly, it becomes obvious that the full Paticca-samuppada cannot be interpreted as existing in one life when one looks at the first 3 links in reverse order: When Avijja ceases so does Sankhara and, consequently, so does Vinnanam. In other words the ending of Avijja causes the ending of Vinnanam. Now what type of Vinnanam can possibly cease as a result of a person eradicating Avijja, the ignorance of the full meaning of the Four Noble Truths? We all know that an Arahat, one who has eradicated Avijja, remains fully conscious, retaining Vinnanam, after his attainment. He does not become unconscious at the moment of his attainment, ever more to be comatose until he dies! So Vinnanam cannot mean the ordinary, arising in every moment, type of consciousness

For me, Ajahn Brahm has based his reasoning on the dubious but salient translation of nirodha as 'cessation'. I am inclined towards the view that nirodha means quenching or extinguished, like the flames of a fire or thirst is quenched or extinguished. What is left is not nothingness. What is remains is cool faculties, serene consciousness, Nibbana. This the Buddha describes clearly in SN 22.53, the Upaya Sutta.

When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being'.

Elohim wrote:... you have consciousness and name-and-form acting as causes and conditions for each other, however, fabrications and ignorance are included under name.

For me, a misunderstanding arises in the Pali. The Buddha spoke: 'anicca paccaya sankhara'. Only three words. Paccaya here is a verb. Buddha said: "ignorance conditions fabricators". The fabricators or sankhara are clearly defined in the suttas (MN 9 & MN 44) as the breathing in & breathing out, vitakka & vicara and perception & feeling. These fabricators under the influence of ignorance condition consciousness and the mind-body, in that they make consciousness cloudy or stained and the mind-body disturbed with hindrances. Consciousness is stained by the asava so it does not see clearly. It is not clear, luminous or serene consciousness. It is crazed consciousness, as the Buddha would say:

"Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."

It is common to think of dependent origination as giving rise to the existence of consciousness and the mind-body. For me, this is not the case. Ignorance & its nutriment, the five hindrances, condition the body & mind to make them agitated, disturbed and primed to seek an object via the sense bases. The body & mind are primed to experience dukkha.

In dependence on the sensuality element [anusaya] there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention there arises sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a sensual quest. Engaged in a sensual quest, the uninstructed worldling conducts himself wrongly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.

SN 14.12

This is my understanding and interpretation through meditation practise.

Elohim wrote:... you have consciousness and name-and-form acting as causes and conditions for each other, however, fabrications and ignorance are included under name.

For me, a misunderstanding arises in the Pali. The Buddha spoke: 'anicca paccaya sankhara'. Only three words. Paccaya here is a verb. Buddha said: "ignorance conditions fabricators". The fabricators or sankhara are clearly defined in the suttas (MN 9 & MN 44) as the breathing in & breathing out, vitakka & vicara and perception & feeling. These fabricators under the influence of ignorance condition consciousness and the mind-body, in that they make consciousness cloudy or stained and the mind-body disturbed with hindrances. Consciousness is stained by the asava so it does not see clearly. It is not clear, luminous or serene consciousness. It is crazed consciousness, as the Buddha would say:

"Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."

It is common to think of dependent origination as giving rise to the existence of consciousness and the mind-body. For me, this is not the case. Ignorance & its nutriment, the five hindrances, condition the body & mind to make them agitated, disturbed and primed to seek an object via the sense bases. The body & mind are primed to experience dukkha.

In dependence on the sensuality element [anusaya] there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention there arises sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a sensual quest. Engaged in a sensual quest, the uninstructed worldling conducts himself wrongly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.

SN 14.12

This is my understanding and interpretation through meditation practise.

stuka wrote:Lastly, it becomes obvious that the full Paticca-samuppada cannot be interpreted as existing in one life when one looks at the first 3 links in reverse order: When Avijja ceases so does Sankhara and, consequently, so does Vinnanam. In other words the ending of Avijja causes the ending of Vinnanam. Now what type of Vinnanam can possibly cease as a result of a person eradicating Avijja, the ignorance of the full meaning of the Four Noble Truths? We all know that an Arahat, one who has eradicated Avijja, remains fully conscious, retaining Vinnanam, after his attainment. He does not become unconscious at the moment of his attainment, ever more to be comatose until he dies! So Vinnanam cannot mean the ordinary, arising in every moment, type of consciousness

Ajahn Brahm is also caught out by the Upanisa Sutta. Here, the cessation of consciousness is not mentioned in relation to the cessation of dukkha.

In the same way, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for formations, formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction of the cankers.